SOMSAY DALASAY MADVI Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforenoted Appeals are filed under Sec. 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, ' the said Act') impugning the Orders dtd. 6/3/2023 passed below Exhibit Nos.140 and 133 respectively, in Special Case No.909 of 2020, by the learned Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, rejecting their Applications for dropping the charges/provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act from the said case.

(2.) The Appellants thereafter filed Applications below Exhibits 140 and 133 respectively for dropping the charges/provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act and/or to discharge them from the provisions of the said Act, from the present case. As noted earlier, the trial Court by its impugned Order dtd. 6/3/2023 has rejected the said Applications.

(3.) Mr. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants in Appeal No.472 of 2023 submitted that, in the present case the date of alleged commission of offence is 1/5/2019 and the date of registration of offence is 2/5/2019. That, the Competent Authority while granting prior approval to apply provisions of the said Act has relied on two crimes mentioned therein. That, as far as crime No.99 of 2019 is concerned, the cognizance of the same was taken by the trial Court on 30/5/2019. He submitted that, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Vs. C.B.I. and Anr reported in (2014) 11 S.C.C. 282, on the date of lodgment of the crime to which the provisions of M.C.O.C. Act are applied, the cognizance of both the cases must have been taken by the trial Court, otherwise the prior approval granted by the concerned authority is bad in law and the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the provisions of the said Act. He submitted that, therefore the impugned Orders passed by the trial Court are erroneous and may be set aside.